Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.
United States Supreme Court
138 S. Ct. 1865 (2018)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
United States purchasers of vitamin C (collectively, the purchasers) (plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit in federal district court alleging that Chinese sellers of vitamin C (collectively, the sellers) (defendants) engaged in price and quantity fixing in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act. The sellers moved to dismiss the case, arguing that Chinese law required them to fix the price and quantity of their vitamin C exports. The Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China (the ministry) filed an amicus brief supporting the motion of the sellers and interpreting Chinese law to require the price and quantity fixing. The district court denied the seller’s motion to dismiss and explained that it did not consider the ministry’s statement conclusive. At trial, a jury held that the sellers had violated § 1 of the Sherman Act. The sellers appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the district court. The court of appeals held that the district court should have granted the sellers’ motion to dismiss because federal courts are bound to a foreign government’s reasonable interpretation of its own law. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ginsburg, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.